Re: Re: Re:overweight an issue? - Weight vs. lean mass

["Susan Garlinghouse" <suendavid@worldnet.att.net>]

> I didn't see it scanning the article, but I thought I remembered that
there
> was a breaking point, in that there was some difference in the results
once
> the total horse/rider weight combined was over 1500lbs?? or the rider
weight
> went over 30%???? ((Susan!!  are you there??))
>
> if I am reading the table right, the 'rider weight ratio' ranged from
> 14.9% - 31.3% with literally no difference between the successful and
> unsuccessful competitors.
>
> Becky Huffman


yes...yes...bless you, Becky <breaking into hysterical sobs>, you actually
read the damn thing before posting.

Yes, there's a breaking point, but those numbers were from the convention
lecture, they're not in the published paper.  Essentially, the incidence of
lameness was much lower in horses whose body weight and rider weight
combined was less than around 1000 lbs, and gradually went up until almost
all of the pulls in horses whose BW plus RW was over 1400 lbs was due to
lameness.  There was ONE exception and this was Ruby the mule, the year she
won the Haggin---she and Sandy constituted the heaviest equid/rider
combination.  And you couldn't separate out small horses/big rider from big
horses/small rider.  The parameter that mattered was the combined weight of
the two, regardless of how it was divided up.  We looked at rider weight
ratios and it didn't make a difference to incidence of lamness or metabolic
pulls, unless the horse was thin---then those horses with low condition AND
a heavy RWR burned out faster.  But even then, it was a function of the low
condition score, not really of the weight of the rider alone.  Had the same
horse had a better fat cover, the statisitics say it could have carried the
same rider just fine.

Becky, you've restored my faith in human literacy.

Susan G